March 2011 Coach's Quiz

We have discussed the 10 most common myths about how to recognize and handle requests for reasonable accommodations. Now let's look at how the myths could lead to fair housing problems in the real world. Take the COACH's Quiz to see what you have learned.

INSTRUCTIONS: Each of the following questions has only one correct answer. On a separate piece of paper, write down the number of each question, followed by the answer you think is correct—for example, (1)b, (2)a, and so on.

And this month, there's an extra credit assignment: Judge for Yourself, a description of an actual court case. Test yourself on whether you think the community should be held liable, and then check the summary of the court's ruling to see how much you have learned.

The correct answers (with explanations) follow the quiz. Good luck!

QUESTION #1

Your community allows residents to park anywhere, but an applicant says she wants an assigned parking space because she can't walk too far. You can't be accused of a fair housing violation if you:

1. Ignore her comment because she didn't ask for a reasonable accommodation for a disability.

2. Ignore her comment because she doesn't appear to be disabled.

3. Treat her comment as a reasonable accommodation request.

QUESTION #2

A resident, who uses a wheelchair due to a mobility disorder, asks for a staff member to drive her to medical appointments as a reasonable accommodation for her disability. Since she has a disability-related need for the accommodation, you must grant her request. True or false?

1. True.

2. False.

EXTRA CREDIT: JUDGE FOR YOURSELF

In a recent court case, a condo association was accused of violating fair housing law by failing to grant a resident's request to keep a golf cart as a reasonable accommodation for a disability.

The complaint alleged that, before moving to the community, the resident bought a golf cart to increase her mobility due to multiple physical conditions that impeded her ability to walk significant distances without shortness of breath. The resident said that, on advice from her doctor, she and her husband moved to Florida and bought a condo, which was on a multi-acre campus with facilities located significant distances from each other and their condo unit. Although there was no rule prohibiting the use of a golf cart on the premises, according to the resident, she said she told the board about her golf cart before moving in. She said that she complied with the board's request for a doctor's note, and the board approved her use of the golf cart on the premises.

Allegedly, the resident used the golf cart for four years without complaint or incident, until the newly elected board president sent her a letter requesting updated medical documentation and threatening removal of the golf cart if she didn't comply within 30 days.

The resident said that she provided the requested medical report, but that the board failed to respond, effectively denying her request to use the golf cart as a reasonable accommodation. The resident also alleged that, following her complaint with a local fair housing agency, she became the victim of harassment and threats by members of the condo association.

The resident sued, but the condo association asked the court to dismiss the case.

How did the court rule?